Standing Committee F

[Part II]

[Mrs. Marion Roe in the Chair]

Hunting Bill

[Continuation from column 982]

Peter Luff: I was a little disturbed to hear the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, whose contributions to the Committee have been characterised by honesty and intellectual rigour, seeking to resort to the numbers game in the argument about whether clause 6 should stand part of the Bill.
 Most vets do not want hunting banned; it is not easy to argue against that point. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the whole debate on deer hunting—and other forms of hunting—has been driven by two organisations, the RSPCA and the League Against Cruel Sports, which represent 0.1 per cent. and 0.2 per cent. of the British population respectively. Bearing in mind that opinion polls suggest that British people want hunting regulated, not banned, I would advise Labour Members to play the numbers game with great care. 
 I was impressed by the honest nature of aspects of what the hon. Gentleman—and other Labour Members—said during the debate. The hon. Members for Sherwood and for Weaver Vale made clear their honest and sincerely held view that clause 6 does not go far enough, and that they intend to ensure that it goes further when the Bill reaches the Floor of the House. The Middle Way Group would like to engage with that issue and—although it wants to reach a different conclusion—agrees with them about it. 
 The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West made it clear during his interesting speech that he was driven by a simple disapproval of what human beings did, rather than the animal welfare implications of the measure. The Middle Way Group is a little uncertain of the animal welfare implications of banning deer hunting. We think that the evidence is not clear-cut, and we are not entirely sure which conclusion we should reach on the least suffering test. 
 Simply disapproving of something should not be grounds for banning it. Just because one does not like what other people do does not mean that one should ban it. That applies to deer hunting, adultery or owning a caravan. I choose the last subject with some care, knowing the Minister's boss, but caravans are something of which I heartily disapprove. They get in the way on roads, they are rather dangerous, they turn over on motorways and they are a hazard to life and limb, but I would not actually ban them. The case for banning them, however, is a good deal stronger than that for the banning of deer hunting. 
 Adultery does a lot of harm, and I disapprove of it heartily. I have a moral perspective on the issue, and I 
 think that it is utterly unacceptable, but we are not going to ban adultery. In this place, we have to allow people to do things that we disapprove of because that is the nature of democracy. If there is no animal welfare argument for banning deer hunting—I am not sure about that, but I do not think that the evidence is there—we cannot use disapproval. 
 We cannot say what the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has just said. I cannot remember his exact words, but he said something like, ''In this day and age I do not think that human beings should do this.'' That is not grounds for a ban. In the Middle Way Group, we believe in balancing freedom against animal welfare. If the animal welfare arguments are strong, something should be banned, and I accept that entirely. Where they are equivocal, one must give more weight to the human liberty argument. 
 We had a small debate on what happens in the New Forest. I know the New Forest very well, and I know that culling techniques there are very different from those on Exmoor. Majority culling takes place from permanently installed towers, in which marksmen are at an elevation above the deer. The deer gather in well-known areas and are shot from above; it is a safe and easy technique. The situation in Exmoor is very different. It is a much larger area, in which the deer's whereabouts are less easy to predict. One certainly could not use high towers. I may be wrong about that, so I shall happily give way.

Mike Hall: I am not disputing the hon. Gentleman's point. Does that shooting take place during the day or at night?

Peter Luff: I do not know when it takes place. Stag hunting in the New Forest was not banned. It was indicated that the buck hounds would not have their licence renewed and they gave up. They withdrew, in effect, voluntarily, but knowing that they would probably not get their licence. Since then, significantly more deer have had to be culled by marksmen in the way that I have described. I do not know whether that is during the day or at night. I shall find out.

Adrian Flook: Is my hon. Friend aware that the New Forest commoners are already beginning to complain vociferously and regularly because the deer are not being moved on and are over-grazing certain areas?

Peter Luff: Yes; and that brings us to utility and pest control. I am not sure that the Minister is right to say that deer hunting could not pass the utility test or the least suffering test. There is a strong argument that deer hunting in the New Forest had a considerable utilitarian benefit. The hunt used to disperse the deer through the forest into areas where the general public were frequent visitors. Since the ending of deer hunting, I am told that the deer now congregate in large numbers in more private areas of the forest, which are more biologically sensitive and commercially important, away from the general public. That means that the Forestry Commission has to cull significantly more deer than were culled in total by the old, combined management regime.
 I do not know for certain, but the New Forest experience suggests that the Minister is wrong to reach the cast-iron conclusion that deer hunting fails the utility and least suffering tests, so must automatically be banned. The awful thought at the back of my mind is that clause 6 is in the Bill in an attempt to appease some of the political opinion on his Back Benches. Manifestly, as the debate has shown, it has not succeeded.

James Gray: I should like to correct one point of detail in my hon. Friend's excellent speech. It appears from Hansard that the Minister and his noble Friend Lord Whitty have accepted that deer hunting passes the utility test. If it is to be banned, presumably it must be on the grounds of cruelty.

Peter Luff: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that information. We should pause and ask whether clause 6 should stand part of the Bill. Is the case as clear-cut as the Minister has claimed? Several people in the scientific world are rethinking the positions that they have taken on the scientific evidence, and it is tremendously important for the Minister to take account of that. We are talking about only three packs. It is not as if the registrar would be overwhelmed with work. We have discussed exempting other forms of hunting where not doing so will lead to thousands of applications to the registrar and risk overwhelming him with work. The Minister has happily allowed that, but there are only three packs involved in deer hunting. Once the first has gone through the system, the precedent probably will be established.
 The Middle Way Group position, simply, is that there is no reason to single out deer for a ban. We do not believe that the tests are drawn correctly; the utility test, in particular, has not yet been drawn correctly by the Government and the Committee, according to the original proposals. However, if the tests are drawn correctly, they should be applied equally to all forms of hunting with dogs. We cannot see an argument, other than a political one, for special treatment for deer. 
 If the Minister is determined on his course of action—and if the House, in the Committee and on Report, endorses that course—there are certain things that he must do to ensure the proper management of the deer herd and the countryside where the deer are. There are problems in the New Forest, which he could go and see for himself, and there will be problems elsewhere, including on Exmoor. A deer commission for England and Wales has been discussed in the Committee, and he should look at that. Other measures might include legally recognising deer management groups and tagging deer after they have been shot to ensure that they are properly treated and taken to a game dealer in an appropriate way. 
 There are a host of practical considerations for the Minister. I shall not labour the point now, but I hope that, in his concluding remarks, he will give the Committee a sense of what he will do about the problems that inevitably will be created if he is determined to press ahead with the ban. That would 
 be intellectually consistent with the rigorous position that he has claimed to adopt.

Judy Mallaber: I will be extremely brief, as I think that the arguments have been well aired. I rise merely to express my wholehearted support for the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood. I support the content of clause 6 and shall vote in favour of it. I look forward to the response of my right hon. Friend the Minister on the arguments that have been made. I am sorry only that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) is not here because I understand that, as a doctor of biology—which we have said that we are missing—and former university academic, he made a scholarly scientific presentation on Professor Bateson's research in a previous Committee. Such a presentation would have supported our contentions on clause 6 and the stress caused to deer.
 I have listened to the arguments of the hon. Member for Taunton with some bemusement, and have tried to make some sense of his statistics. I have to say that I still do not understand, from his figures, his explanation of why overall deer numbers would fall. I could not make the numbers add up when I tried to extrapolate from his figures from the Burns report. Perhaps he can come back to that on another occasion.

Adrian Flook: Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

Judy Mallaber: Certainly, if the hon. Gentleman can explain it more clearly than in his previous five attempts.

Adrian Flook: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way in such a gracious manner. Perhaps she is missing the quantum; if there is no hunting with hounds of deer, which are currently maintained by the hounds, many more will be shot, because the local community—500 to 600 compliant landowners—will no longer seek to protect them for hunting. The deer will be susceptible to being stalked and shot in greater numbers. Some will be shot surreptitiously because deer will still be a pest and will end up being hunted for trophies or food.

Judy Mallaber: I am still no clearer. I do not want to labour the point, but when I extrapolated from the figures that the hon. Gentleman gave from the Burns report for his own area, it seemed to me that the extra deer that would potentially be shot would be fewer than those currently killed through hunting.

Adrian Flook: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Judy Mallaber: I do not want to labour the point because we have been through it. No doubt we can exchange figures later.
 My main point is that, although I support the content of clause 6, like my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood, I believe that it is too limited. It should include foxes. The introduction of a ban on foxhunting is clearly the will of the democratically elected House of Commons. I am sure that that would be expressed again, in any further vote on the Floor, by all the 
 Members who believe that foxhunting is cruel. I would vote for such a change to the legislation.

James Gray: I understand the hon. Lady's position, but does she accept that were clause 6 amended to allow an outright ban on foxhunting, the whole Bill would be ruined and our efforts of the past two months in discussing the Bill, the cruelty and utility tests and the registrar would have been a total and utter waste of time? Why does she not just ban it straightforwardly in the first place?

Judy Mallaber: The Committee's arguments on utility and cruelty have been important and useful. I am sure that there will still be discussions on the Floor on our arguments about how the Bill will operate and what will happen if foxhunting is banned. I would certainly vote for a change that would ban foxhunting. As others have said, it is important that such a vote is taken on the Floor. That is where our will should be expressed. There can be a full vote there and the Minister, the other place and the world at large can see what the will of the House is.

Lembit Öpik: I apologise for my earlier absence. I thought that the Northern Ireland order on terrorism, a matter of life and death in Northern Ireland, was a higher priority than foxhunting.
 I have one short point, although you may rule me out of order, Mrs. Roe. It seems to me that when we look at the clause and at the whole question of cruelty and utility, it is an irrelevant red herring to talk about the will of the House. The point of the Committee is to look at the evidence and the information. Listening to contributions such as that of the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber), I am concerned that hon. Members are occasionally mixing up questions relating to opinion polls with questions relating to whether it is in the interests of animal welfare, as well as civil liberties, to remove the clause. I note in passing that a majority of people are opposed to a ban on hunting, but that information is not relevant to the clause.

Marion Roe: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman intervening? [Interruption.] Has the hon. Member for Amber Valley finished?

Judy Mallaber: Yes.
Lembit Öpik rose—

Mark Tami: The hon. Gentleman talks about opinion polls, but does he accept that the House has demonstrated its feelings on the issue on many occasions?

Lembit Öpik: If I were to digress at any great length, you would rightly rule out or order me and others who contributed, Mrs. Roe. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government commitment was to take a poll of the whole House. He will know that the majority view of the whole of Parliament—in other words, the Lords and the Commons together—is for the Middle Way Group.
Mark Tami indicated dissent.

Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but it is a matter of fact. If we cannot agree on
 statistical matters of fact, which are recorded in Hansard, we have reached a pretty pass. He will also be aware that public opinion has markedly moved away from a ban. Once again, we can talk about the statistics and opinion polls. I could argue that the majority in Parliament supports the Middle Way Group's proposals and that the majority of the country does not support a ban. None of that is persuasive in Committee, however, because the Committee should be looking at whether there is a logical reason for banning outright the hunting of stags and deer with dogs.
 The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire has already expounded the Middle Way Group position, and I have no intention of repeating anything that he has said except to associate myself with his comments. I appeal to members of the Committee to take a step back and ask themselves, if they are so certain that their cruelty versus utility logic is correct, why the matter should not be submitted to the independent arbiter that the Bill seeks to set up. If that does not happen, many will be suspicious that there is a political motive, which, like opinion poll ratings, is not appropriate for consideration in deciding whether a category of animals should be given special status.

Alun Michael: At the beginning of the debate, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire said that a lot of the debate—I think that he was referring to hunting in general—is based on emotion, not reality. That is true, and he opened up a well-tempered debate given the strength of views in Committee. I shall try to reflect the nature of the debate as well as the facts and the circumstances as I see them.
 The hon. Gentleman took us back to my letter of 10 April. My letter followed my statement in March and went to all Members of this House and another place. I was not closing down the debate with a narrow definition, as he seemed to be suggesting, but opening it up and specifically inviting all views. 
 The hon. Gentleman has sought to give an impression of what I asked hon. Members, animal welfare organisations, hunting organisations and anybody else with an interest. I said in the letter that there were two key principles to be addressed on the prevention of cruelty and the concept of utility: 
''Cruelty is already dealt with in our legal system in regard to a variety of aspects other than hunting. 'Utility' addresses the need for particular activities, particularly in the work of land and wildlife managers. It might be described as the need or usefulness of an activity for vermin control, wildlife management, habitat protection or land management and conservation.''
 I went on to invite all those who had received the letter to make comments and suggestions to help to establish the best way of dealing with the issues. 
 In the document itself, which set out the questions from the initial consultation that I felt were the ones that really needed to be answered in order for me to bring proposals to Parliament, I stated: 
''Respondents are welcome to comment on any other issue relating to hunting with dogs which they consider may be helpful to me in the formulation of proposals, but the questions in this paper arise from discussions and comments made in the process so far.''
 The context in which the questions were asked was very clear. 
 I referred to utility in paragraph 8: 
''It has been suggested that, to remain lawful in the future, any specific form of hunting should have to pass the test of being useful for achieving a specific purpose or purposes. The Burns Report also considered the extent to which hunting has a positive or negative effect on the management and conservation of habitat and other wildlife and land management (Chapter 7 of the Report).''
 I then asked a specific question: 
''For what specific purposes does any particular activity of hunting with dogs have utility? What tests should be used to determine whether or not an activity has sufficient utility? Who should take the decision and how?''
 Far from closing down debate, my April letter extended the most wide-ranging invitation to people to make their case, argue for aspects of utility or concede. 
 It is important to note that I went on to refer specifically to deer. After outlining some of the issues that had arisen, I asked questions 18 and 19: 
''18. Do you accept the utility case for culling deer for specified purposes? If so, what conditions should apply and what evidence do you have to support your view?
19. How practical is shooting as an alternative to hunting for the purpose of culling deer? Is it more or less likely to inflict unnecessary suffering? What evidence do you have for this view? What conditions could be applied?''
 At that time, it was clear that there was an argument about the benefits of shooting and hunting deer. It had come out in the Burns report, and I made the questions very explicit. I did not close down the debate with a specific or narrow definition. 
 Finally, I included a section that focused on the alternatives of stalking and shooting, and comparisons of injury. I asked for comments: 
''(i) Should the activity be the subject of a general exemption from regulated hunting? On what grounds?
(ii) Is there any other activity which should be the subject of a general exemption from regulated hunting? If so, on what grounds?
(iii) Does the activity have utility? Can its purpose be practically achieved by some other reasonably practicable means that would cause less suffering?
(iv) If the activity is to continue should there be any conditions attached? If so, what conditions should apply and what evidence is there that such conditions are necessary?''
 All hon. Members received the letter. On reflection, they may accept that I could not possibly have given a wider or more open-ended opportunity for people, whether they supported, opposed or were neutral about hunting, to contribute information and arguments.

Gregory Barker: Opposition Members do not doubt that the Minister allowed people to contribute evidence. Our fundamental disagreement with him is about his failure to come up with a convincing case, based on the evidence that he received, for why it is less cruel to shoot an animal, considering the 15 to 20 per cent. wounding injury rate, than to hunt it with hounds and shoot it cleanly.

Alun Michael: By intervening at that point, the hon. Gentleman shows that he is a little impatient; I have only just started. On a number of occasions Opposition Members have made use of the
 definition, as the hon. Member for North Wiltshire puts it, in my letter from April. I hope that those quotations make it clear that I asked questions in April. I offered the most wide-ranging definition of the issues of cruelty and utility and made it clear that those two issues, which arose from the Burns report, needed to be addressed in order to design good legislation and enable Parliament to reach a conclusion.
 When one considers all the replies that were received to those questions—together with the evidence presented to Lord Burns and the conclusions that he reached—one realises that the situation at one end of the spectrum, ratting, is irrefutable. The alternatives of poisoning and snaring are likely to involve more suffering to the quarry species and others than the use of dogs. We debated that earlier. 
 The situation is also clear at the other end of the spectrum in relation to hare coursing. Some Opposition Members have suggested that hare coursing ought to be put to the registrar. I cannot see that. By definition, hare coursing is about testing the speed and agility of dogs; it is not about getting rid of pests or any of the utility tests.

Hugo Swire: While the Minister is listing exemptions and non-exemptions, will he comment on why he did not consider falconry in his deliberations?

Marion Roe: Order. The Minister should be careful. That may well be outside the scope of the clause.

Alun Michael: I will content myself with saying that we debated that earlier and I responded to the hon. Gentleman's question then, as he will see if he looks at the record.
 Having considered hare coursing, which seemed to me an open-and-shut matter—by definition, it cannot satisfy the tests—I looked very carefully at deer. I asked whether deer hunting could be necessary in the way that people on Exmoor and in the Quantocks claimed—the hon. Member for Taunton has made the case very eloquently—even though it was not necessary in other parts of the country. 
 Burns made a number of references to deer and to foxhunting. In the course of this short debate, points have been raised about foxhunting. There is a major difference between the two things. We are talking about three packs of deer hounds in a specific part of the country, whereas one of the issues with foxhunting is the immense variety. Burns focussed on that. His conclusions left open the possibility of there being circumstances in which the utility could be achieved only with dogs and the alternatives might be more cruel. I saw no evidence to enable me to close off that loop. I know that some of my hon. Friends judge differently, but I am simply addressing the situation as I understand it.

James Gray: I am slightly puzzled. My memory of the Burns report is that Burns went to great lengths to avoid talking about cruelty, but the Minister seems to be saying that Burns said that in some circumstances foxhunting would not be cruel and in others it would.
 My clear memory is that Burns went to great lengths to avoid saying that anything was cruel.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is right to a certain extent. I am using shorthand, as it were. I am referring to the test of comparative suffering. I am happy to accept the hon. Gentleman's description of what Burns said. I am considering what can be done in terms of taking the Burns conclusions and carrying them forward when preparing legislation.
 The question is whether there are circumstances in which the tribunal and the registrar should be asked to come to a judgment on deer hunting. I will respond to the comments made by my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood and for West Ham and others. I fully understand their views, which have been frequently expressed, and the position that they have taken in relation to foxhunting. I want to reassure them, particularly in relation to the point made by the hon. Member for Sherwood. Under the legislation, we would not sub-contract decisions on other species—those that are not clear-cut cases such as fox and mink—to the registrar and the tribunal. There is a very clear framework for decisions where evidence may vary. The tribunal is based on the availability of the evidence; we are not sub-contracting the decisions on what is acceptable. We may continue to discuss that matter, but there is an important distinction to be made between the way that this legislation works and previous legislation. 
 I understand the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood and other hon. Members who have campaigned for years on the issue. The Bill is designed to deal with cruelty. It will provide a consistent way of dealing with a series of issues in a variety of circumstances, and will deal with a range of species and evidence. Foxhunting can take place in an immense variety of locations where foxes are perceived to be a pest. There are considerable complications in dealing with mink as a pest. Animals are hunted where they exist in many cases, and it is important to test the activity against its necessity, which the Bill will do. It will ensure that the utility test is satisfied in any circumstances, and it will ensure that the test of least cruelty is satisfied. 
 I would urge the Committee, and the House, to declare its will to consider what should not be allowed. We should also consider that the way in which decisions are taken might lead to more cruelty—avoidable suffering—that might be undertaken in meeting the requirements of utility in clause 8(1). We have to make judgments on that. I appreciate that we are in pre-vote territory, and all my hon. Friends have to come to their own conclusions. 
 We have to make honest judgments on each element of the Bill. In drawing up the Bill, I have tried to do that. I seek to persuade Members on both sides of the House of the merits of the Bill when I feel it has stood up to the test of discussion, but I have also accepted amendments when the arguments of Committee members have suggested that the quality of the legislation would be strengthened. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West was asked about the relationship of human behaviour to animal welfare. That is the sort of issue that can lead people down blind alleys unless they are careful. My belief is that the House of Commons is seeking to eradicate cruelty, and cruelty is therefore the target. One cannot have cruelty without human behaviour. That would be like the existence of unintentional hunting. I do not seek to bring that forward again, but I remember the number of occasions on which that had to be brought to the attention of the Committee. Parliament wishes to end the cruelty associated with hunting with dogs. My concern is to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion, and it should do so in a way that specifically targets cruelty, but allows activities that are necessary. That is why the tests of utility and least suffering are essential in achieving legislation that is tough but fair. 
 In opening the debate, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire suggested that I had chosen to make a judgment on deer hunting. That is not what I sought to do. I went out of my way to consider the evidence and establish whether it was clear enough to reach a conclusion. I listened to both sides. I specifically spent time, as one or two hon. Members have been kind enough to acknowledge, to listen to those who have argued passionately for the continuation of deer hunting. I gave them the opportunity to provide evidence that would call into question the evidence of Burns. 
 The hon. Member for North Wiltshire was wrong to say when he opened the debate that there was unanimous agreement that no differentiation should be made between different species at the hearings in Portcullis house. That is not the case. I certainly agree that the principles should be the same and that they should be applied consistently and logically, but the principles have to be applied to a variety of different circumstances and to the specific evidence. 
 There was a good deal of debate about the relative size and weight of the quarry species compared with the pursuing species—issues that vary between different hunting activities.

James Gray: The Minister accuses me of misleading him. Last week, I read out the transcript of the Portcullis house hearings, when all the scientists agreed that all categories of mammals must be treated in precisely the same way. At no stage in Portcullis house was it advanced that hunting some species would be exempt, but hunting others would be banned.

Alun Michael: I am sorry, but there were three days of hearings and I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman's assertion as a description of what took place at Portcullis house; it is an extremely partial distortion. Clearly, he was persuaded in the hearings that that was the case. The conclusion was clear, however; the application of the principles should be consistent. Where the evidence changes and there are differences between the quarry species and in the degree of suffering involved, the conclusion should be different. That is not inconsistent, but sensible.

Gregory Barker: The Minister mentioned the difference in size and weight between the quarry and the pursuing hounds. Why is that relevant to deer hunting, as the hounds do not dispatch the deer, only chase them?

Alun Michael: It is relevant, not specifically to deer but to the argument of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire that all species should be dealt with in the same way. That was certainly not a suggestion that came out of Portcullis house.
 Prior to Portcullis house, when I discussed the matter with the Countryside Alliance, the Middle Way Group and the Campaign for the Protection of Hunted Animals, it was acknowledged that there was a greater likelihood of achieving clarity at both ends of the spectrum—ratting and hare coursing—than where the circumstances could be variable. What is important is that the law applies the same principles in the same way best to protect animal welfare while recognising utility. That is the point of the legislation. I accept that we could draw up a Bill that put everything in the middle category to be judged by the registrar and the tribunal, but it would mean putting a number of categories—hare coursing and ratting—to the registrar and tribunal, wasting a great deal of time with no likelihood of any conclusion other than the one that I have written into the Bill.

Peter Luff: The Minister is exploring an interesting point. Earlier he said, ''Where the evidence changes''. The evidence on foxhunting and deer hunting will change as scientific studies progress. Foxes are not covered by the clause. When the registrar re-registers hunts, he can take into account changing evidence, whether in favour of or against hunting. If evidence on deer hunting emerges that suggests that the Minister's clear conclusion is wrong, the clause will mean that that cannot be taken into account. Would it not be more intellectually honest and fair to give deer hunting—there are only three packs—the same privilege? I am not for or against the continuation of the sport.

Alun Michael: I understand the hon. Gentleman's case. I had to come to an honest decision on the basis of the evidence available to me and to make recommendations to Parliament in the legislation as to what I believed would be right. I have tried to do so as honestly as I could, as I am sure he will accept. He says that evidence may change. Fresh evidence may be produced. New evidence may be more conclusive. If new evidence emerges that changes the situation, the registrar and tribunal may have to take it into account. Parliament may also need to revisit the matter if a dramatic change in evidence demonstrates that the law needed to be changed. That route is always open. I would distinguish between evidence changing and circumstances being different, as I shall explain.

Michael Foster: Would not the Middle Way Group's argument about intellectual rigour carry more weight if members of it had voted last week for mink to be part of the proposed registration scheme? Instead, the group argued for the complete exemption of mink because it thought that that was the right answer.

Alun Michael: I would not want to say anything that might put the two members of the Middle Way Group who are members of the Committee at daggers drawn with another member who is not on the Committee. There would have been greater consistency had they done so, but that is for them to decide. I had to come to a conclusion as honestly as I could; so do they and they have had the opportunity to put it to the Committee. They may not have convinced my hon. Friend, but that is a matter for them, not for me.
 On the variation in circumstances, the sessions on cruelty and utility at Portcullis house highlighted how the length of the chase and the circumstances of the kill varied between different species, affecting the degree of suffering involved. We also discussed how alternative techniques would be available to manage each species affected by utility and the relative suffering likely to occur. The hearings were extremely interesting and the evidence provided led logically to different conclusions for different species.

James Gray: Perhaps I may remind the Minister of the transcripts of the Portcullis house hearings to which I referred. His friend Professor Harris—the main advocate of a ban—said,
''I think I have argued this all the way through this session, that we should be looking for a uniform approach not only across species but also across other welfare legislation we have applying to mammals in Britain, so we should look for uniformity, yes . . . I repeat what I said before: that ... they should be applying the standards already established across species and different approaches. That would be my view.''
 In summing up at the end of the session, the Minister said that that unanimity was extremely useful. 
 I understood from the Portcullis house hearings that the Minister had accepted that there should be uniformity of treatment across mammal species. If not, he will have to apologise for misleading the Committee.

Alun Michael: I certainly did not mean that. I agreed that the principle should be applied consistently. It was interesting to hear that while there was agreement between the scientists giving evidence, there was also considerable disagreement. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is straining at a gnat and trying to extrapolate way beyond what is reasonable. I made it clear during the hearings, after them and in everything that I have said since that the Bill should be based on principles that could apply consistently to the pursuit of one mammal or group of mammals by another. The Bill is based on those principles.
 In the application of those principles, the evidence and the different circumstances have to be taken into consideration. That is the point of the registrar and the tribunal. They do not change their principles. They must be clear that there is utility in hunting—if there is not, there can be no hunting—and whether the suffering caused is greater than is necessary, in which case it should not be allowed. On that basis, the activities than can continue are not cruel because they satisfy the tests. That is the point—it is that the circumstances must be taken into account.

James Gray: The Minister has a good point about the registrar deciding on the basis of cruelty and utility. In the context of the clause, the registrar will not have that luxury and may not come to a conclusion about whether the cruelty associated with deer hunting exceeds its utility or vice versa. The right hon. Gentleman has decided that unilaterally.

Alun Michael: No, it is on the basis of the evidence. It uses the same principles as clause 8, which is a point that I made when we debated clause 8. I remind the hon. Gentleman, who seeks to quote one comment by Professor Harris, that Professor Harris gave a detailed account in Portcullis house of the way in which cruelty and utility vary between species. Professor Harris also suggested that the legislation should treat different species in different ways, which is what the Bill does.

Judy Mallaber: Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the fact that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire is still insisting on putting utility against cruelty and stating that there is no possibility of making a judgment on whether cruelty outweighs utility, which is at variance with the Bill?

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend is right. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire is missing the point that the tests are sequential.

James Gray: Will the Minister give way?

Alun Michael: May I finish answering my hon. Friend? One has to answer the question of whether there is utility to an activity and consider whether there is a less cruel way of achieving the same utility. The sequential nature of the tests is crucial to conducting them sensibly. As I said in an earlier debate, weighing a couple of pounds of cruelty against a few pounds of utility is frankly not an acceptable way to make a judgment.

James Gray: I thank the hon. Member for Amber Valley, who was right that I was using shorthand by saying that one will be weighed against the other. Whether the tests are sequential or considered together, the registrar will not have the opportunity to consider them sequentially. The registrar will not consider whether deer hunting has utility. The tests will not go to him because the Minister has decided unilaterally to ban deer hunting.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman says ''unilaterally'' as though it were a term of abuse. It was my responsibility to report to Parliament with recommendations and legislation, which I have done. The final state of the legislation is a matter for Parliament.

Edward Garnier: Would I be too cynical in suggesting that there is only one test, which is the political test? Deer hunting has failed to pass the political test, ratting has passed it, and the utility and cruelty tests in clause 8 have been strained through the sieve of the political test. Those three political decisions had to be made in drawing up the Bill. The Minister has made a political decision based on the support or otherwise that he will get from his Back Benchers. At the heart of the Bill is a political question, not nice decisions over science or absence of science.

Alun Michael: The hon. and learned Gentleman may be cynical; if that is so, it is his problem, not mine. He is, however, certainly wrong. Many people, including those Government and Opposition Members who would disagree with some of my conclusions, would accept that, in undertaking this difficult task, I tried to come to conclusions that were right and would stand the tests of debate and of time. I am willing to defend my decisions and to listen to what hon. Members have to say about them.
 A number of incorrect points have been made and should be challenged. At one stage, it was asserted that hunting deer with dogs equates to their natural condition because when wolves chase deer, deer are programmed to respond to the experience of being chased. The use of dogs to chase deer in the west country is characterised by the extended nature of the chase, which on average lasts for three hours and covers 18 km. A deer's natural predators—wolves and lynx—do not undertake extended chases. 
 On 28 January and again this afternoon, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) quoted an exchange of correspondence between Professor Bateson and representatives of Vets for Hunting, in which Professor Bateson is quoted as claiming that his evidence cannot be described as incontrovertible.

Gregory Barker: Will the Minister give way?

Alun Michael: I will not do so for a moment. I have not had the advantage of reading the exchange, but my view is not based on Professor Bateson's evidence alone. He showed that deer are liable to suffer as a result of being chased, and that was supported during discussions at the Portcullis house hearings. It is clear that the nature of deer—particularly their size and browsing habits—is such that it is always possible for a competent marksman to stalk an animal and kill it quickly while causing it minimal suffering, if necessary using one or two dogs under the exemption in paragraph 1 of schedule 1. That is the conclusion of the Burns report and I have heard nothing to refute it.
 The least suffering test in clause 8 as amended by the Committee can only be passed if the proposed hunting is likely to cause significantly less pain, suffering or distress to the wild mammals to be hunted than would be caused by any other reasonably available method of achieving the same contribution to pest control in the area. That is why I have concluded that the hunting of deer with dogs does not satisfy the tests in the Bill.

Gregory Barker: The Minister must be a little confused. I have not quoted any correspondence today.

Alun Michael: That is interesting. I shall look with interest at the record. [Interruption.] It was a contribution last week.

Gregory Barker: Did the Minister say today?

Alun Michael: No, I did not. That is where the hon. Gentleman may be mistaken. I said that on 28 January and again this afternoon comments were quoted.
 The hon. Member for North Wiltshire appeared to accept the Bateson findings that hunting causes more 
 suffering to the individual animal than shooting, although he then drew different conclusions on the generality. Perfectly reasonably, he went on to ask whether the suffering is justified by the benefit to the general health of the herd. I cannot see why that should be, unless there is a perverse intention by some on Exmoor, having lost patience with the deer, to kill without any justification or reason for doing so. I urged hon. Members not to suggest that the ending of hunting would somehow justify extraneous and excessive activity. Such suggestions must be treated with immense care. 
 Otherwise, we should treat the activity as we see it. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough suggested the safeguard of a 10-year moratorium on shooting, but that is a curious suggestion, given that under existing circumstances, never mind those in the future, more deer are killed by shooting than by hunting.

Edward Garnier: The Minister is right. I did make that suggestion through a letter that was written to him by my cousin Mr. Mark Blathwayt, who owns the Porlock estate. I do not know whether the Minister answered my cousin directly, but I put the question to him for the purposes of our debate.

Alun Michael: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for making the nature of the source clear, but the suggestion contains another circular argument. The letter suggested that the herd would disappear if not hunted, yet claimed that hunting is necessary to control the deer as pests. There is some inconsistency in that, especially if one looks at the facts.
 Some of my hon. Friends have touched on the matter. Utility may be satisfied in the sense that culling is needed, but that is not the same as utility being satisfied in terms of the need for hunting or hunting satisfying the test of least cruelty. According to the figures that I have been given, some 1,000 deer need to be culled each year in the area covered by the three stag hunts to which reference has been made. The packs kill about 160 deer a year. They also deal with additional casualties each year, but those animals would probably have died anyway. Those figures come from paragraph 5.62 of the Burns report. The utility test of needing to cull to control numbers is strong, but the utility test of hunting to achieve that outcome is weak, in the extreme.

Hugo Swire: Of course, we can put forward a numerical argument that hunting is not vital to the preservation of the herd on Exmoor, when comparing it with the number of deer that are killed by a weapon at the end of each year. Given that hunting exists in such places, the 500-plus farmers have a stake in it. It is part of their lives, which is why they look after the herd and why it is culled. It is the best herd of deer anywhere in the world and it will disappear if the link is removed between the herd of deer and those who live on the moor. The herd will suffer.

Alun Michael: I understand the argument that has been put forward, which is why I have spent time listening to so many people from Exmoor and giving
 them the opportunity to explain their belief, to see whether evidence supported it. I must tell the Committee that such arguments were unconvincing. Given that Conservative Members have been quoting Professor Bateson selectively on several occasions, I wish to quote his reply to question 9, to which I referred earlier. He said:
''Hunting with hounds would have utility if there were no more effective way of culling animals that cause substantial damage. If the animals were specifically introduced or bred for hunting (as is alleged to be the case for foxes in Norfolk), the case for utility doesn't exist—apart from the social and economic benefits of retaining the Hunts. A somewhat similar argument applies to red deer in the West Country. It is argued that the red deer population levels are higher than in other parts of England because the land owners and farmers tolerate a certain amount of damage by deer to trees and crops. They do so because they like to hunt the deer.''
 In other words
, Professor Batesman marshalled the argument advanced by the hon. Member for East Devon. He continued:
''This is tantamount to farming the deer for hunting purposes and the utility argument rests on treacherous ground. It is worth noting that, on best estimates, the Stag-Hunts cull about 130 deer per year. The overall population is somewhere between 2500 and 5000 and appears to be stable. The generally accepted mortality rate for a stable red deer population is 20 per cent. per year which means that 500–1000 die per year from various causes. In other words, even if the utility argument were accepted, the Hunts are contributing at best a quarter, and probably much less, to the total cull. Here again the assessment of 'sufficient utility' should be taken by an independent group of scientists.''

Adrian Flook: Does the figure of 5,000 refer to red deer, or does it concern red deer and other types of deer? We have not referred to such a figure; it is much closer to 3,000. Will the Minister comment on such a discrepancy? The figure was provided by Professor Bateson, who does not live on Exmoor. He is not an expert on deer. He is an animal behaviourist, not a physiologist.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman has made some of the points that he went into in his extended intervention on several occasions. I hope that he feels better for expressing them again. I quoted verbatim from the response to question 9. The numbers include the population that is estimated at about 3,000 for red deer, as the hon. Gentleman said. He has taken the widest possible minimum and maximum figures to be sure that he has hit mark. It is not necessary to attach any greater importance than that to the matter.

Mike Hall: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the evidence that was presented on 9 September in Portcullis house that the red deer population in the south-west was about 12,500? That puts his whole argument into perspective.

Alun Michael: I am not sure of the figures. I think that they go beyond the west country, and beyond the south-west as a whole. I shall check the figures for my hon. Friend.

James Gray: The numbers do not really matter. The important point in the right hon. Gentleman's verbatim quote is the last sentence of Professor Bateson's answer to the last question. It was something like, ''further scientific research is necessary''.

Alun Michael: No, it was not. Professor Bateson suggested that the assessment of sufficient utility should be taken by an independent group of scientists. I understand what he said, but my conclusion was that it should be dealt with through the registration by a registrar—where that was necessary in the Bill, with the appeals to the tribunal—but that the case was not made for deer hunting to continue.
 Professor Bateson's response to question 18 is helpful. He said: 
''I regard the utility argument for hunting deer in the Southwest of England as being weak because land owners and farmers encourage higher densities of deer than occurs in other parts of the country. Understandably, they seek to win public acceptance by their tolerance of the deer, but it is difficult to understand how this can also be used to sustain the view that culling by hunting is therefore necessary in order to keep the numbers down.''
 That seems to be a polite way of putting it. To complete the picture, he refers to stalking, including the statement: 
''It is clear that stalking practices could be improved even further.''
 That is correct. It is a matter that I have discussed with a number of organisations, particularly the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, which has made great efforts to improve the quality of training in marksmanship. It is important to try to reduce the levels of wounding or failure to shoot directly. 
 We have heard that the practice in hunting deer is to select the deer to be hunted in advance. There seems to be no reason why, having made the selection, the selected animals should not be stalked and killed, rather than returning to the hunt the following day. The hon. Members representing the Exmoor area will refer to the culture and beliefs of the people there and I accept that there is a belief that that is the right way to stalk deer. However, I could find no evidence to support that position. 
 There is also an issue about the quality of the herd. The scientific advice is that the Exmoor deer herd has no special features, as regards behaviour or genetic diversity, that are not shared with other red deer herds in other parts of the country where hunting does not take place.

Adrian Flook: I am sure that, in his answer, the Minister will pay tribute to the size of the red deer on Exmoor in comparison with the red deer found elsewhere.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman will have to show evidence. I have not seen any research supported by evidence. The fact is that healthy deer herds exist in places other than Exmoor—in places where there is no hunting. My Department does not have a view on the optimum size of the deer population on Exmoor, but there seems to be a general agreement that deer management is needed in the area. The hon. Gentleman pointed that out in his contribution.
 In the event of a ban on hunting, it is unlikely that indiscriminate shooting would completely eradicate deer in the Exmoor area. It could lead to a decline in numbers of red deer in certain areas, but perhaps compensating increases in others and a patchier 
 distribution overall. Those who care for the herd on Exmoor must give the matter careful thought. I accept that the members of the Committee from the area who have spoken are among those who care about the future of the herd on Exmoor. They would accept that we should not encourage any indiscriminate shooting by the way in which we refer to the outcome of the debate.

Gregory Barker: Mention of indiscriminate shooting brings us back to wounding and wounding rates. In Burns, there are several references to wounding, which range from 2 to 15 per cent. or more. Bateson and Bradshaw found that about 10 per cent. of deer needed two or more shots. A conservative estimate was that about half of the wounded deer escape detection completely. The Minister has received a great deal of evidence and must have made his own working assumption. What is his working assumption of the number of deer that are shot, or likely to be shot, and simply wounded?

Alun Michael: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the variations quoted by Lord Burns.

Gregory Barker: Yes.

Alun Michael: I am not sure that I can go a great deal further. Later estimates seemed to suggest that 2 per cent. might be more accurate, but I would hesitate to be too authoritative. However, I am sure that, as Lord Burns said in his report and as Professor Bateson's report indicated, improvement is possible. We must increase the skills, the training and the responsibility with which shooting is undertaken. I have mentioned the discussions to that end in which I have taken part.

Michael Foster: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, when a deer is shot and wounded and then escapes, the Bill allows dogs to be used to search out the wounded animal, so that it can be dispatched promptly?

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend is right. That was deliberately done to keep suffering to a minimum. That assessment leads to the provision in the Bill to which he refers.
 Again, there are matters that I want to clarify. On the size and health of animals on Exmoor, one of the findings given in the Portcullis house evidence came from Professor Harris, who said that red deer in East Anglia are larger and have bigger antlers than those in the west country, which does not support the argument of the hon. Member for Taunton. 
 I said that I would come back to the size of the herd, because I always hesitate when it comes to raw numbers.

Gregory Barker: Will the Minister give way?

Alun Michael: I shall, when I have finished speaking through you, Mrs. Roe, to my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale.
 There are about 12,500 wild red deer in England and Wales. Of those, some 10,000 are found in the south-west, and 4,000 to 6,000 of those are in stag hunting areas, mainly on Exmoor. Again, those are the figures that Lord Burns gave in paragraph 5.45.

Mike Hall: My right hon. Friend is correct, but that estimate was made in 1995. If the deer herd grows at 2 per cent., it would now be around 12,500 in the south-west.

Alun Michael: I cannot argue with my hon. Friend's arithmetic. I do not have the evidence about what has happened in the intervening period.

Gregory Barker: We cannot simply gloss over the shooting point, which goes to the heart of the animal welfare and cruelty element. Does the Minister agree that a range of 2 to 15 per cent. is too wide to be left unknown? Presumably he considers that there is an acceptable and an unacceptable level of wounding? What level would he regard as acceptable and what as unacceptable? I would regard a 15 per cent. wounding rate as severe cruelty.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman accurately quoted the range in Burns as 2 to 15 per cent. I am pleased to say that I have found the reference that I was looking for when I said that later evidence suggested a lower wounding rate. In paragraph 6.36 Burns quoted the latest study by Bradshaw and Bateson, in which they estimate that 2 per cent. of shot deer escape wounded. That is the figure that I quoted a few moments ago.

Gregory Barker: What is unacceptable?

Alun Michael: Unnecessary wounding, causing avoidable suffering, is unacceptable, whatever the percentage. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the range of 2 to 15 per cent. was unacceptable, and I think that it answers his question pretty reasonably to say that the latest study quoted by Lord Burns showed that 2 per cent. was a more accurate estimate. I am not in a position to pluck percentages out of the air and say that one is acceptable and another is not. The way to approach such activities is through best practice, good training, good marksmanship and the minimum of suffering when undertaking activities in which there is utility.
 I was referring to the impact of a ban on hunting. The National Trust, Exmoor national park authority, Somerset county council and the Forestry Commission are likely to be committed to maintaining a healthy deer herd in the long term using methods other than hunting, to ensure the future of the herd following the proposed change in legislation. That is not necessarily to say that they would all argue for a ban on hunting, but they would respond to legislation responsibly. 
 Landowners already have the opportunity lawfully to manage deer populations by means other than hunting, generally by appropriate control during the open season, and where there is serious damage to crops and forestry, during the closed season. DEFRA is investigating the social, economic and environmental impact of a ban on hunting in the area. We are talking to the national park authority, the local authorities and a range of other key players and, as was mentioned earlier, I have spoken to the Members of Parliament for the area. I recognise that the situation must be managed and that the decision in the Bill, should it become law, will be unacceptable to some people. 
 The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire said that deer hunting might pass the utility test. I agree and I hope that I have made it clear that that is not at issue, although Burns said that the contribution that it makes to population is questionable because of its ''inherent inefficiency'' and because 
''it is not sufficiently biased towards culling hinds and calves to achieve the desired reduction in overall numbers.''
 The case for clause 6 relies on the inability of deer hunts to pass the least suffering test and to demonstrate their efficiency in relation to utility.

Peter Luff: Will the Minister give way?

Alun Michael: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not mind waiting until I get to a comma, if not a full stop, before I give way.

Peter Luff: I want to intervene before the Minister moves on. I think that he has been given new figures on wounding rates for deer, with which I am not immediately familiar. Perhaps I misunderstood him, and they are old figures whose source I do not know, but if they are new, will he write to the Committee setting out where they came from?

Alun Michael: I was referring to the later figures quoted in Burns. He quoted the range of 2 per cent. to 15 per cent. and then the Bradshaw figures. I shall give the hon. Gentleman the page later.

James Gray: The Minister is referring to the Bradshaw and Bateson report. Will he take the opportunity to tell the Committee whether he has received a letter from Professor Bateson during the past couple of days demanding further scientific research before any conclusion can be arrived at on hunting deer with hounds? He is shaking his head and perhaps civil servants will have to look into it, but I understood that Professor Bateson had written to him asking for further research before any ban.

Alun Michael: I understand that Professor Bateson was intending to write to me after asking to see what Opposition Members had quoted in their exchanges. His letter may well have arrived. When I have received it, I shall read and respond to it. The hon. Gentleman again jumps ahead. I shall deal straight with any communications that come to me, from Professor Bateson or anyone else.
 The role of dogs in the dispersal of deer has been mentioned as a method of preventing inbreeding. Many deer populations exist in the absence of such assistance and do not suffer from the ill-effects of inbreeding. Wildlife species have their own behaviour mechanisms to exclude excessive inbreeding. We have to return to the issues raised by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire at the start of the debate. Hunting deer with dogs is always likely to cause a degree of suffering to the animal being chased. Burns states in paragraph 6.33: 
''Most scientists agree that deer are likely to suffer in the final stages of hunting.''
 Unnecessary extension of the chase would obviously give rise to more unnecessary suffering. Burns states clearly in paragraph 6.39 that the chase is unnecessary because 
''stalking . . . is in principle the better method of culling deer from an animal welfare perspective.

Eric Martlew: There has been much discussion about the percentage of deer that suffer because a marksman fails. Is Burns not really saying that every deer that is killed by hounds suffers before it is killed?

Alun Michael: I think that there is a degree of suffering and, to satisfy the requirements of the Bill, it would have to be shown that less suffering was involved than with the alternatives. I could not put my hand on my heart and say that I could reasonably reach that conclusion, generally or specifically.
 I want to emphasise the important point made by Burns: a good stalker will ensure that he has a clear shot that will kill the animal with the minimum of suffering. The suffering to which Conservative Members have referred is most likely to arise when the stalker does not take care to ensure that the first shot will be effective or when he does not have the appropriate skills to do so. That is unnecessary suffering, and if the stalker cannot be sure of taking an effective shot, he should not shoot. It is always open to a stalker not to shoot at a particular moment.

Gregory Barker: Is the right hon. Gentleman familiar with paragraph 6.37 of the Burns report which states:
''Bateson and Harris conclude that, if the total number of animals that suffer per number culled is taken as the index, the balance of the argument comes down on the side of stalking rather than hunting as the most humane method of culling. They add, however, that the picture is less clear if one takes into account the length and nature of the suffering involved, together with the hunts' role in locating and dispatching 'casualty' deer.''{**Mw4**}

Alun Michael: I am tempted to say yes, but what is the hon. Gentleman's point?
Several hon. Members rose—

Alun Michael: I am spoiled for choice. Hon. Members should know by now that I have read the Burns report carefully, particularly the sections on deer, as well as taking account of all the other evidence that I received during the discussions at Portcullis house and the visits undertaken. I give way to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik).

Lembit Öpik: Does the Minister accept that no one who was hunting or shooting would set out with the intention of missing a shot or not getting a clean hit? The issue, which may be different from that raised in the previous intervention, is that, with the best will in the world, there will be a degree of wounding. That is not the core issue that the Minister is discussing, but does he accept that wounding is an inevitable consequence of shooting? I have already established that at the Portcullis house inquiries no one had a definitive answer about the wounding rate, particularly of foxes.

Alun Michael: I am not sure that I can say anything except that the hon. Gentleman makes his point. Wounding rates vary according to the circumstances and, clearly, responsible people act responsibly. It is a matter of public policy to encourage people to act responsibly and to work with organisations such as the
 British Association for Shooting and Conservation which seek to raise those standards, thereby lessening the likelihood of irresponsible activity or increased suffering as a result of wounding.

Rob Marris: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is familiar with Burns and can quote from it. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle quoted Burns somewhat incompletely, because he stopped in paragraph 6.37 with the words ''dispatching 'casualty' deer''. The paragraph continues:
''In relation to the latter, however, it should be noted that this role is carried out elsewhere in the UK by licensed stalkers, the RSPCA, and other groups and individuals''.
 Paragraph 6.38 states: 
''It is clear that more work would be required in order to provide further scientific evidence about the welfare of hunted deer and how hunting compares with stalking.''
 Burns goes on to state in paragraph 6.39: 
''Stalking, if carried out to a high standard and with the availability of a dog or dogs to help find any wounded deer that escape, is in principle the better method of culling deer from an animal welfare perspective. In particular, it obviates the need to chase the deer in the way which occurs in hunting.''

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I quoted that earlier, and it is apposite to the intervention of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle. In paragraph 6.40, Lord Burns refers to a point that I was just making about the element of skill and the need to consider ways of improving the skills of stalkers.
 The Bill is designed to prevent all cruelty associated with hunting with dogs. We have discussed at length the two tests set out in clause 8. Where the evidence is incontrovertible that an activity can meet the two tests, which does not mean that it meets them in all circumstances, it will be exempted. Ratting and rabbiting, for example, meet the tests in all circumstances. If an activity cannot meet the tests it will be banned, and hare coursing and deer hunting fall very clearly into that category. Understandably, the Burns report has been quoted extensively, but the conclusion of the report as quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is very clear. 
 The evidence of Professor Bateson was extremely helpful. It was unfortunate that he was abroad at the time of the hearings, otherwise he would have been most willing to give evidence. Some of the issues might then have been tested out. He wrote to me, and I quoted his responses to the questions I asked in April. Professor Bateson showed that deer are liable to suffer as a result of being chased, and that was reported during the Portcullis house hearings. It is clear that the nature of the deer's size and browsing habits is such that it is always possible for a competent marksman to stalk and kill the animal. 
 The application of the least suffering test led me to include deer in clause 6. Chasing deer has been shown to be liable to cause suffering, and Burns shows that stalking is the better method of culling deer. Deer hunting will always be likely to cause more suffering than the reasonably available alternative of stalking. In such circumstances, it seems to me incontrovertible 
 that deer hunting could never pass the test of least suffering. 
 I acknowledge that there are unique considerations applicable to deer hunting on Exmoor in particular, which is why I have spent time making myself aware of the strength of feeling on Exmoor and in the Quantocks. I previously referred to a meeting in London, which has been referred to by Opposition Members, and I undertake to continue the dialogue. I undertook to make a detailed response to some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Taunton, which I shall make available to the rest of the Committee. I agreed with the hon. Gentleman that a deer management scheme is necessary, but I made it clear that legislation is not needed to establish an effective scheme.

Adrian Flook: Is the Minister aware of any such scheme elsewhere in the country which has a membership of a similar size to that of the Exmoor and District Deer Management Society, whose members number several hundred? Most of the similar societies in the country number 2 or 3 dozen members at most.

Alun Michael: As I mentioned in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale, the number of deer is much higher in Exmoor. The particular circumstances of Exmoor have to be regarded, and the local deer management approach is probably better than a national approach. At the moment, Exmoor national park provides the secretariat for a deer forum for Exmoor, which provides an opportunity for representatives of more than 20 organisations concerned with wild red deer to meet and exchange views with the aim of ensuring the continued survival of healthy and well distributed deer populations in balance with the environment.
 The National Trust, the Exmoor society and the Exmoor and District Deer Management Society all have an interest in deer management in the area. The latter society is not a management group in the same sense as those in Scotland. In that country, several landowners combine to develop a systematic approach to the control in the locality. 
 Exmoor is a wide area with a multitude of landowners. The hon. Member for Taunton made a number of points about the nature of the landscape over which the deer roam. Not all the landowners agree about the necessity for controlling the deer population, nor the means by which that should be done; nevertheless, we try to encourage co-operation between them.

Gregory Barker: I am trying not to interrupt the Minister today, but I would like to pick him up on the point of ''incontrovertible evidence'' that he cited. I could understand it if the Minister referred to ''the balance of the argument'', or ''the evidence as he found it'', but the word ''incontrovertible'' is strong language. Presumably it is the language that he must use in order to go for an outright ban. How can he use the word ''incontrovertible'' when the Burns report, at paragraph 6.40, says:
''It is unfortunate that there is no reliable information on wounding rates, even in Scotland where stalking is carried out extensively. In the event of a ban on hunting, there is a risk that a greater number of deer than at present would be shot by less skilful shooters, in which case wounding rates would increase.''?
 It cannot be argued that that represents incontrovertible evidence.

Alun Michael: Let me quote myself accurately. Can the hon. Gentleman clarify which paragraph he was quoting? I thought that he referred to paragraph 6.42.

Gregory Barker: I was quoting from paragraph 6.40.

Alun Michael: That refers to ways of improving the wounding rates for shooting in the event of a ban on hunting. First, as I have stated, chasing deer has been shown to be liable to cause suffering. Secondly, the Burns report shows that stalking is a better method of culling deer from an animal welfare perspective. Deer hunting will always be likely to cause more suffering than stalking. In the circumstances it seems to me to be incontrovertible that deer hunting could never pass the least suffering test.

Gregory Barker: Does the Minister accept that
''there is no reliable information on wounding rates, even in Scotland where stalking is carried out extensively.''?

Alun Michael: I do not accept that there is no evidence on wounding rates, but Bateson suggests that the evidence is not totally reliable. The first evidence available to Burns on wounding rates was that they were between 2 and 15 per cent. The hon. Gentleman quoted the latter figure. Later evidence demonstrated that the figure of 2 per cent is more likely. That is more dependable than the earlier evidence.

Gregory Barker: So it is not incontrovertible.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman intervenes continually to quote selectively from the Burns report. Would he like to read again paragraph 6.39, which states:
''Stalking, if carried out to a high standard and with the availability of a dog or dogs to help find any wounded deer that escape, is in principle the better method of culling deer from an animal welfare perspective. In particular, it obviates the need to chase the deer in the way which occurs in hunting.''?
 That has been quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, and I have quoted it two or three times. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle takes an extract, then goes beyond that to consider ways in which wounding rates in shooting can be improved. He quotes the fact that Burns suggests that better information on shooting rates, and better methods of ensuring the quality with which shooting is undertaken, would be a good thing. 
 I agree with Burns on this: more information would be good. I applaud the work of organisations such as the BASC in improving training and the quality of shooting. There is nothing inconsistent in reaching the conclusion that the evidence is incontrovertible.

Russell Brown: Not only has the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle ignored the previous section, he has selected from paragraph 6.40 as well. This states:
''Consideration should be given to requiring all stalkers to prove their competence by demonstrating that they had undertaken appropriate training.''
 The whole issue is that people are appropriately trained and skilled in what they do.

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend is right. It is worth reminding the Committee of the point about the use of dogs to track injured animals. The exemptions enable up to two dogs to be used for stalking to minimise the suffering resulting from injuries.

Lembit Öpik: We all accept that we have been given many assurances that shooting will not be touched in any way through legislation, but the inevitable conclusion is that there will be no compulsion to train. If shooting can lead to animal welfare problems when it is not conducted by trained people, the clause could make animal welfare worse.

Alun Michael: It is not necessary to press people to do what they are already undertaking. In relation to the BASC and similar organisations, we see that improvement in the professionalism of gamekeepers which I am sure all Members seek and expect.

Ian Cawsey: We seem to be spending an awful lot of time debating the merits of the Burns report. If I had known that we were going to have a Burns night, I would have brought a haggis and some kitchen utensils, and we could have got on with it in Committee. The simple truth is that we have all read Burns. There are lots of different interpretations and a lot of selective quoting is going on. The truth is that the Minister should get on with the debate, put the matter to the vote and let the Committee decide whether the clause should stand part.

Alun Michael: I appreciate that I am nearly all that stands between my hon. Friend and his dinner, but I want to answer fully the challenges that have been made in the debate. If he will allow me, I also want to make a further point about the availability of advice on setting up deer management groups. Advice is available from the Deer Initiative, which is a charitable company initiated by the Forestry Commission.
 The Deer Initiative, which is the Government's preferred one-stop shop for advice and support on deer management in England, consists of Government representatives, including the Forestry Commission, DEFRA, English Nature and the Highways Agency, and shooting organisations, such as the BASC, as well as voluntary bodies, wildlife trusts and people with private interests, including timber growers, farmers and landowners. A principal objective of the Deer Initiative is to promote a co-ordinated approach to sustainable management of wild deer through the establishment of deer management groups. 
 Nothing in the debate suggests that my judgment was wrong when I concluded that deer should be dealt with as they are in the clause.

Rob Marris: Did my right hon. Friend exclude deer from the tribunal system because he sees no prospect of deer hunting getting through? To do otherwise, as Opposition Members want, would create a situation similar to that of the Wireless Telegraphy Appeal
 Tribunal, which was set up in 1947 and has never had a successful application before it.

Alun Michael: I must take my hon. Friend's word for that. I have sought to deal with the evidence sensibly, taking into account the principles that I have expressed on a variety of occasions and which are in clause 8 and part 2. I have sought to apply those principles, and I have reached the conclusion that I recommended in my statement to the House, which is reflected in the Bill. I hope that the clause wins the Committee's support.
 This is not the end of the story. I will seek to work with Members who represent Exmoor and the Quantocks, as well as organisations in those areas, and encourage my officials to do the same to achieve the right balance and future for the Exmoor deer herd. However, the only recommendation that I can make to the Committee is that it approve the clause.

James Gray: I congratulate several of my hon. Friends on their contributions to that lengthy but none the less useful debate. We have been in Committee, with breaks, for eight or nine hours, and we have spent perhaps six hours on this important subject. In particular, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton, who spoke with knowledge and passion. He truly speaks for his constituents, and he advanced arguments on their behalf extraordinarily well. I also congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire.
 It may surprise the Committee to hear that I agree with the hon. Members for Sherwood, for Amber Valley, for Weaver Vale and for Wolverhampton, South-West. They are right, in that there is no intellectual consistency in the Bill. There is no reason whatever to single out deer hunting and hare coursing. Of course, their solution to the problem is different from mine. I would like the registrar to consider all forms of hunting equally whereas they would like to ban all forms of hunting by including them in the clause. 
 I hope that those Members will grant me one thing if foxhunting, deer hunting and, presumably, other forms of hunting are included in the clause on Report—a number of Labour Members have said that that will happen. I hope that they agree that the great effort that we have put into the matter since before summer, including the Portcullis house hearings, other sessions and the six weeks that we have spent in Committee, has been a total waste of time. The registrar will have nothing to register if every form of hunting is banned, and there would be no point in setting up such a system. It may be that that is what they intend to do—I would not be in the least surprised if that were their overall long-term tactic—but I hope that they agree that it would shoot the Minister's fox in no uncertain way and that his huge house of cards would come tumbling down were they to do so. 
 I also congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, who agreed for the first time that the debate on Second Reading and in Committee has not been about animal welfare. 
 Everyone kept saying that the important consideration is animal health, but he admitted that it is human behaviour. The Bill is designed to change human behaviour in a particular way, regardless of whether that results in an improvement in animal welfare. 
 If the hon. Gentleman were to answer my accusation that the issue involves human behaviour only as it affects animal welfare, he would have to show that that human behaviour was detrimental to animal welfare, which would return us to the whole discussion. However, I welcome his straightforward acceptance that the Bill is about human behaviour. I do not agree with it, but at least it is perfectly plain. 
 The debate has been disappointing, as there was a huge amount of to-ing and fro-ing about such things as the precise size of the herd in the south-west and a variety of other details. I admit that I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole that selective quotation and batting Burns back and forth is an absolute waste of time. [Interruption.] I tried. It is a complete waste of time. 
 All the to-ing and fro-ing showed that Burns is open to several interpretations. The report is not straightforward or clear, but rather like the Bible. One hears Jesuit priests and others constantly quoting one or another biblical phrase to prove that abortion is good or that it is wicked, and so on. Burns is the foxhunting bible, in that quoting selectively from it does not achieve much. The important thing that we have learned from the exchange is that Burns certainly does not provide incontrovertible evidence that there is something fundamentally wrong with hunting with hounds. 
 The question of human behaviour is extremely interesting, and the RSPCA is particularly concerned about it. It was interesting to hear Mrs. Jackie Ballard, the head of the RSPCA, on a televised visit to a Hampshire shoot this week. She said that game shooting was ''horrible and nasty'', and has pledged that the RSPCA will try to end it. Her remarks confirm the RSPCA's determination to ban shooting.

Marion Roe: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying from the scope of clause 6. I remind him to keep to the debate.

James Gray: Of course, Mrs. Roe. Straying only slightly and for this reason—

Marion Roe: Straying is straying.

James Gray: I assure you, Mrs. Roe, that I would never stray from the straight and narrow under your eagle eye. I would not wish to do that.
 I am certain that the human activities inherent in stag hunting, which we are discussing under clause 6, must have been a matter that the Minister discussed with Jackie Ballard at the dinner in Shepherd's restaurant a week ago on Monday. No doubt when they got together over dinner, they discussed human behaviour and not just animal welfare.

Alun Michael: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to reveal that I also had dinner with the chairman of the Countryside Alliance, on a different occasion? That
 shows that I am willing to listen to views from all sides of the debate.

James Gray: As indeed am I, which is why I am very much looking forward to visiting the League Against Cruel Sports sanctuary in Exmoor on Friday.
 The Minister goes to great lengths to say that he is listening carefully to the evidence and considering both sides of the argument, but we are trying to discover where he gets incontrovertible evidence from. He says that in the run-up to the Portcullis house hearings he put out his questionnaire, which various people answered. He then held the Portcullis house hearings, followed by a consultation, which led him to conclude that stag hunting should be banned. 
 If that is the case and bearing it in mind that the Portcullis hearings took place in September, can the Minister explain why, on Tuesday 19 March 2002, six months before the start of the hearings, Mr. Philip Webster said in The Times that the Minister's Bill will 
''see the end of hare-coursing. Stag-hunting would also be outlawed and most of Britain's 184 hunts may have to decide whether to close down or switch to draghunting''.
 He goes on to describe the Bill in some detail. We know that Philip Webster is extremely close to Alastair Campbell, but how could he say in advance that the Minister would choose to ban stag hunting outright? The Times knew that last March. However, the Minister says that he found incontrovertible evidence at Portcullis house. We believe that, six months previously, he had made up his mind, with his friend Alastair Campbell at 10 Downing street, to ban stag hunting outright. We believe that that was a political decision and that it had nothing to do with incontrovertible evidence. 
 None the less, the Minister will recall that in my opening speech this morning I referred to some possible reasons in seeking his incontrovertible evidence for banning stag hunting. It is possible that there is no utility in stag hunting. I do not believe that he has even begun to address that. I also asked whether he feels that the final killing of the stag is necessarily cruel. As far as I can recall, his speech made no reference to the method of killing. He omitted a reply on that, so we must presume that it is not particularly cruel either. We are therefore led to the conclusion—he alluded to it briefly—that the pursuit involved in hunting a stag is what he does not like and that he believes there to be incontrovertible evidence on that. 
 The Minister talked about that and referred to the scientific evidence that he was adducing to show that pursuit is what he does not like. The primary element that he described was Lord Burns and, behind him, Mr. Harris and Professor Bateson, the two scientists who advise Lord Burns, although Lord Burns did not come to the conclusion that stag hunting should be banned. 
 However, the Minister did not answer the important point that I put to him this morning. Professor Bateson, his main ally, has now concluded that saying that there is incontrovertible evidence that stag hunting should be banned is, in his words, scientifically illiterate. I understand that Professor 
 Bateson has written to the Minister—the letter should have arrived by now. Perhaps the Minister has been too busy to read it, but I hope that when he goes back to the office this evening, he ensures that he reads it and then shares it with the Committee on Thursday. I understand that Professor Bateson's letter says that there is no such incontrovertible evidence and that further scientific research is necessary before stag hunting can be banned. The Minister says that he has not seen the letter. I hope that, when he gets it, he copies it to all members of the Committee.

Alun Michael: As the hon. Gentleman seems to have such remarkable knowledge of correspondence to me even though I have not yet received it, perhaps he will tell us why I need to bother to give him a copy. By implication, does he not have one already? We will be interested to know what this is all about. There was clearly a certain amount of malice aforethought in his contribution.

James Gray: I am puzzled by the notion of malice aforethought. I have never met or spoken to Professor Bateson and I know nothing about him, so the notion that I am somehow involved—[Interruption.] Let me explain to the Minister. He wants to know why I know about the letter. Val Elliott in The Times, a perfectly good journalist, tells me that she spoke to Professor Bateson this afternoon and that he told her that he has written to the Minister. The information comes from The Times and will be in The Times tomorrow morning.
 If the Minister denies getting any such letter, I am sure that we can get a copy from Professor Bateson, but if he is looking for proper evidence—the incontrovertible evidence that he requires—surely it is only reasonable for him to share with the Committee what Professor Bateson says. If he chooses not to, we must presume that he has good reason. 
 We are simply seeking intellectual consistency in the Minister's approach to the Bill. He says that he believes that stag hunting is by definition cruel, for various unconvincing reasons. Each reason could equally well be applied to foxhunting. There is no such thing as ''incontrovertible evidence'' for treating 
 stag hunting differently. I suggest, as did my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough, that we are talking about political tests, not cruelty and utility tests. 
 Philip Webster knew that the Minister did a political deal of one sort or another in an attempt to buy off his Back Benchers. He has told them that he will give them hare coursing and deer hunting, in the hope that that will keep them quiet so that he can get his Bill through in a reasonable form. However, we hear from Labour Members today that they intend to amend clause 6 on Report so that it wrecks the Bill by including a ban on foxhunting and other types of hunting. We do not intend to give them that opportunity, so we shall vote against clause stand part. 
 Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 20, Noes 7.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Ainger.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past Seven o'clock till Thursday 13 February at five minutes to Nine o'clock.